tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 24, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
atlantic" will discuss his article on the council of conservative citizens, which he describes as a white supremacist organization. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. 13 pro-business democrat and 47 republicans voted to give president obama is the power he needs to close trade deals. the fast-track authority cleared it last legislative hurdle. 80 majority vote is needed on the actual legislation which is come as early as today. we will talk more about that coming up. "your thought on senator bernie sanders presidential bid.
he is surging in the polls in new hampshire. thousands are gathering at his events. the want to get your thoughts. republicans (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002 can also join the conversation on twitter at http://twitter.com/cspanwj or send us an e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org. we will get your thoughts in just a minute. independent senator from vermont has launched a presidential bid and thousands are showing up. he is surging in the polls. 5000 people came to hear bernie sanders speak in denver and thousands of other events across the country. he is done to by the large
crowds that are showing up for him. it is becoming a bigger problem for his opponent hillary clinton . this has endorsed senator sanders. what do you make of his for the white house? is he gaining momentum? what do you like about what he is saying? do you plan to vote for him? the center launched his campaign in vermont. he has been crisscrossing the country since then. here he is at a town hall in denver on saturday where this showed up.
[video clip] bernie sanders: there is something wrong but when 99% of new income create a the top 1%. there is something profoundly wrong when we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires and at the same time millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. [boos] there is something profoundly wrong but when one family in america owned more wealth than the bottom 130 million americans.
this grotesque level of wealth and income inequality is not only a moral is not only bad economics, is not only unsustainable, it is not what the united date of america is supposed to be about. [end video clip] host: bernie sanders talking to voters, a crowd of 5000 showed up. we are turning to you to get your take on his road to the white house. what do you make of it? john and pennsylvania, independent, you are first. caller: bernie is the only person to vote for. the tpp vote that shows democrats are just as or for it and do not care about the people as much as republicans are.
bernie cares about the middle class. he always has. it makes sense. he is the only one i will look for. iparty subscribed. i'm sending him some money every month. it is that a large amount but it is everything he needs without people showing up at his rallies. keep on doing it. hillary is certainly not the answer. she has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches from goldman sachs . host: you subscribed in your senate him money every month. have you set up with his campaign with an automatic withdrawal? how is our top about -- talking about? caller: how does not say. -- i would rather not say. everything makes sense. he has always made a sense beard if we do not what out.
host: the tpp is the transpacific partnership. the select was on task direct authority for trade. the senator from vermont is opposed to it. he joined five other republicans. senator king joint five other republicans to vote against trade promotion authority. these are the republicans. richard shelby, jeff sessions, rand paul, ted cruz. he was for it and reverse it yesterday. here are the 13 pro-business democrat that voted with the 47 republicans. john and pennsylvania looks at these 2016 candidates. he says it is why he is voting
for/supporting senator bernie sanders. mark in philadelphia, democrats. good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call greta. there is no way i'm voting for bernie sanders and the primary here in pennsylvania. i love what he stands for. i like what he says he i have said it before, bernie sanders is unelectable. he cannot win. he was a registered socialist. now he is an independent. let's face it. first of all, i am a moderate democrat. what is wrong with wall street? do all democrats have the against wall street? i have a 401(k) managed by have to?
wall street. it makes this country go whether we like it or not. we live in a cap them. -- capitalistic system feare. hillary may be a little centrist and court did but in my opinion she is the only one that can raise the kind of money that is going to counter people like the koch brothers. if we do not have hillary, we are going to be swamped. host: does your's lord for hillary -- your support for hillary translate to energy? will you contribute to her? caller: i will contribute but not campaign for her. host: why not? caller: my wife and i are busy people. host: living your life. caller: three kids. it is going to be tough to do that. host: will you go to any campaign event if they come to
pennsylvania? caller: probably. maybe one or two. my wife and i we do not like a lot of democrats here in philly. upper middle class you would call us. we're not wealthy. we're not four. -- po weo are silent. we do not yellr. o we are the backbone of the party. host: you mention wall street. what else are you center on? caller: let me say this. if president obama, the leader of our party, says this is a good thing i trust him on it. i may be naive. if president obama says it is a good thing, it is good enough for me. host: mark in philadelphia. winky.
-- t hankthank bernie sanders y,ou.. one of the problems it poses is democrats say there is a risk in taking him head on. this can alienate liberals. they need to meet in the fall to elevate him as a challenger. tallahassee florida, republican. what do you think of his campaign? caller: it is not surprising to me that i agree with him on one thing. there is something profoundly wrong in this country. it has been thought about by the education system that is worse
than history. the fact is about 52% of the american people will light league i. obama said he did not have much to do with the affordable care act. host: william, tennessee, democrat. what do you make of the venture bernie sanders bid to the white house. caller: i think it is the only chance we got. the countries such a mess with all of these trade deals. we do not have the tax base.
they lost their jobs. this has created problems. that is the one that resonates with you, quality jobs. what if he does not win the primary? then what? you look for hillary clinton? you vote for hillary clinton? caller: i do would have to vote for her. host: do you vote for her? caller: yes ma'am. host: gilbert in birmingham. independent. good morning. caller: thank you for calling my call. i find it ironical that he made his move on the day the senate did the trade deal. this country is looking for new
trade shots. america finally out that we cannot doing this. the opening of our own economy. we do not need a first man in the white house. i will not be voting for bill clinton to be the first man in the white house. that is me. i will not be voting at all. i know that sounds crazy. i have voted all my life and i consider it an honor and a privilege. i will vote at all. to be the first man, there are 300 million people.
i think it is better than me. host: how much are you going to give? caller: as much as i can in my budget. maybe i will quit driving so much. people cannot even understand what this trade deal means. every day it will be made in china. it will be made everywhere else. host: senator sanders launched his the big officially -- bid officially earlier this month. the clip was from the rally he had in denver. he is crisscrossing the country,
noting that he is drawing large crowds. 5000 came to hear him begin denver. more than 3000 people were at a sanders event at the end of may. earlier more than 700 were at a sanders rally in iowa. hillary clinton is still leading in the early primaries sta look at the national will. clinton has a strong position in the democratic field. she is a 70 5%. the republican is now running in the democratic field.
we are getting your this morning on bernie sanders it for the white house. what do you make of it. we are going to keep giving your thoughts this morning. continue to dial in. we are joined by the reporter. he taught about governor bobby jindal's campaign announcement. where will it take place and doesn't have significance for his campaign? guest: it will place just outside new orleans. that is where governor jindal lives when he was in congress. that is his area. jefferson parish is a republican shop old. there is a little significance there for him. host: how has the government
been preparing for his launch? guest: we have seen it for several months to adhere spent in iowa, south carolina, new hampshire. all signs have been pointing toward this. we have heard him a lot saying he is hoping and praying and thinking and all of this rhetoric behind it. for the past several months he has made several trips to the primary states. we are starting to see a lot of his transition. first it was his pacs and nonprofits. now his exploratory committee. host: what about money? how is he missions? -- positions? guest: that will be a big part of today. all the people i have talked to set the test after today will be
can he get the money? he is not jeb bush or hillary clinton starting off with a lot of money. it is going to be key after today trying to don't that base -- trying to build that base. host: does he have the backing of any high-profile republican voters? guest: not really at this point. host: he is still the governor of louisiana. how has he positions himself trying to push and agenda that would appeal to a conservative base across the country? guest: what we have seen a lot of is a focus on trying to highlight the economy of louisiana. he has been awesome post-katrina and louisiana has building. he has put a big emphasis on that. the oil industry you're in
flight that -the oil industry here and that. we have seen and this is very conservative principles. yet spoken out against common core. this year he was trying to push for a religious read themfreedom cut. he is really playing in to that right conservative base. quitehost: how would he perform against hillary clinton and louisiana? guest: hillary is doing battle the bobby jindal -- better than bobby jindal and louisiana ironically.
he says he has had to make tough decisions. he has cut the size of government. he thinks that is part of making government smaller and more efficient and all of that. it is not very popular. louisiana has had a heavy state government focused. host: elizabeth crips, we will be watching today. we appreciate your time. winky. -- thank you. we will have coverage of that. go to www.c-span.org for more details of bobby jindal jumping into the race for the white house. that is our conversation we are having with better sanders on
the left. his, what do you make of it. republican, florida. caller: i think bernie sanders is going to lose against hillary clinton. he makes a lot of sense. [indiscernible] millions of jobs were lost. manufacturers are going to add it again and again. host: myra. independent. caller: thank you for taking my
call. i am voting for bernie sanders. i am a radical leftist and a socialist. i understand most people talk about the middle class, but what about the poor class? that being said, another guy was talking about wall street. in 2008 it was wall street that caused the financial crisis along with things like people losing their houses and jobs like that. people should get mad. another thing is that i can critic of the economics is in that we have in the world. i'm critical of capitalism. i do not like it. it needs to be gotten rid of your i agree with bernie sanders. if he does not get the numbers
i probably wouldn't vote at all or hillary clinton. i'm also a feminist. i think she should give a nomination -- get the nomination. host: do you view your support and possible vote for bernie sanders as a protest? caller: possibly. yes. i just like his views on things. it is not a protest vote. i like his views, especially with the tpp deal. most was not about trade. it was about regulation and internet. it gives operations -- corporations more power. host: i am going to leave it there so i can hear from herb.
caller: i am a bernie sanders and, but first let me say i am a long-term viewer of c-span. i go act to the days when brian mann was on every morning. brian lamb set the gold standard. i have to say in all candor that you have met the gold standard of brian lamb. you are good. host: thank you. i appreciate that. caller: my comment on bernie sanders is not only do i support him but i think if the american people understood what he has consistently stood for they would support him over hillary clinton.
i give credit to c-span for highlighting bernie sanders. i am fearful that the media may tend to keep bernie sanders in the that ground. i in careful that when it comes to the did they there is an organization called the committee who decides who gets some of the debate. i am fearful they tried to bernie sanders out. host: if they did that, who would be left? caller: if this committee decides that everybody who has not made the 20% coal numbers do
not get on the did they then hillary would be there by herself. i think there are certain members of the republican party's that would do almost anything to keep people from understanding what bernie sanders is all about. medicare for all wall street and income. i could go on strengthening the social security program. the only thing i have have heard bernie sanders talk about
that no one else is is the $750 billion a year we are for the military-industrial complex. host: he has been on the show talking to all of you many times. note to our website www.c-span.org. you can find many appearances not just on the show but what he says during the rate over pentagon bills during his tenure. we're getting your on bernie's anders -- benrnie sanders. he is still trailing hillary clinton. on the republican like, the governor from wisconsin a $20 million jumped. he is at the front of the gop fields. he is stockpiling money and
[video clip] hillary clinton: i know it is tempting to dismiss this as an isolated incident. that institutionalized racism no longer exists. but. despite our best efforts and our highest hope america's long struggle with ways -- race is far from finished. we cannot hide from grace and justice. we had to name them and own them and change them. that is why i shave the actions began yesterday by the governor and other leaders in south airline to remove the confederate battle flag from the statehouse there.
[applause] recognizing it as a symbol of our nation's racist half that has no future. it should not fly there. it should not fly anywhere. [applause] i also commend walmart for deciding to remove any products that uses it. [end video clip] host: hillary clinton weighing in on the debate over racism and the confederate flag in the south. i want to mention this headline in politico. chris christie is expecting to announce his bid as early as next week. governor bobby jindal of
louisiana is joining in. we will have coverage of that. go to www.c-span.org for more. sam and virginia, republican. what do you make up for any sanders fit for the white house? caller: bernie sanders is not have a chance. this is why. he is talking about a trade deal. 20 million people may lose their job. i have been written off anyhow. -- they h been writtena off anyhow. v you bring in malaysia and vietnam. ethese are countries china will control. this deal have to go through. as far as voters -- that is because of austerity. we haven't $18 trillion debt. they're going to be so many problems. it is going to be unbelievable.
elections are rigged. rubio will probably be vice president. he is right when he said that the american voters are just plain stupid. don't you think they are realizing 20 million people are losing their job? they do not care. host: do you plan to vote as a republican? caller: i do not know right now. i do know rubio will the vice president. i'm not really decided yet. i mean not even vote. let me say one thing. i live in virginia. we do not have a primary candidate. people do not get to vote for a republican candidate. that is,: got elected. they had a choice. this is how rigged everything is very.
host: greg, independent. caller: good morning. you're on the air. guest: i liked what the last caller was talking about. he was talking about the streaming nation. for all of you in america it is the pro-choice movement, the woman that started genesis back in the 20's. do you all hear me talking? that is what i am talking about. she is talking about racism. there you go. this is ironic. host: we will talk to jennifer
next. democrats. good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i am supporting bernie sanders. in my opinion, he is the only candidate who has a chick picture of what is happening in the united states. i am sorry. he is consistent with what he is saying. i will be voting whether he makes the primary or not. we do have to vote for a president. host: your phone is breaking up. i apologize. we will keep getting your calls for another 10 minutes about senator sanders' campaign and running in the democratic primary. with that ticket is an independent from vermont. we will get your thoughts on his campaign. what do you think as they
gathered for the presidency? i want to show you what was happening on capitol hill on the chamber. the house is paying a moving tribute to think that rims of charleston. they were led by a republican of south carolina. take a look at what happened. [video clip] >> cynthia hurd, sharon a singleton, meera thompson, the reverend daniel simmons senior and susie jackson. would you join me in joining us in a moment of silence?
[end video clip] host: a moment of silence including the two sisters from dr. line and members of the black caucus for a moment of silence. the president headed to south carolina on writing. he will be giving the eulogy. this is prompting reflection from obama. many members will be heading down to south carolina or that. here are several headlines from this morning.
they say they will stop making can federate why and then you have flag ban gaining grounds. he orders the emblem. also this morning here is from the post carrier out of south carolina. a new flag debate on pearls passion. this calls for his removal. he is the son of the late senator. he decries the racist emblem.
this is what paul thurmond had say. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> it is my understanding that the rivals of the that he was leaving focus on the book of mark. chapter four versus four through eight. this discusses a farmer who was selling his for a crop. they were put in place where they could not grow. they made it to good soil. they were able to grow and multiply hundreds of times. this shows our work as public servants. there are times where we have
ideas that sprout up quickly only to realize we have not had enough room to grow. there are special interest predators that fly in and devour. sometimes the ground is hurdle. the time is right for there to be growth. i think it is right for us to make progress of a states and remove the confederate battle flag from the prominent statue and put it in the museum. >> he was calling for the flag to come down in south carolina. we want to get your thoughts. we have about five minutes left on politics and bernie sanders
it for the white house. he is moving at the polls in new hampshire. he is crisscrossing the country in drunk large crowds at his event in denver this past week and. 5000 showing of to hear from him the. he is sitting down with c-span for an interview to talk about the candidacy. he can watch at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you can learn more there. to get back to two more of your phone calls. i want to show you two other things. the wall street journal weighing in on a boat to move forward on trade promotions. this cleared the 60 vote hurdle.
the wall street journal says ted cruz votes in no yesterday and has inhaled the elizabeth warren vapors. it is also showed cynicism on the quote. they make up false accusations and's read them like elizabeth warren. ted cruz turned against the bill at the last minute. on tuesday he took to an anti-trade website to announce switch. he said mitch mcconnell voted for this. a vote was going to happen no
matter the trade. the washington times defends ted cruz. the senate has transformed this. they say ted cruz was right to switches votes against trade authority. wikileaks went hand. they have been eavesdropping as recently as 2012 and usa today with the headline. they are creating a hostage unit for the coverage of u.s. censuses -- citizens.
their mouth. i wanted to vote for peru. he had to back out under strange circumstances. i cannot vote for hillary. i am an independent but i voted for obama because he had some great ideas. ernie has even better ideas and besides hillary being part of the scandal getting paid to back out of the health care thing i cannot trust her. she flip-flopped all the time. whatever is in the news she kind of goes with. i was a radical back in and 70's. he got to the bernie sanders in this.
host: we are talking about senator bernie sanders surging in new hampshire. donald trump is nearing the timeop. also in 2016, kay hagan lost her reelection bid. she will not challenge the current senator in 2016. she loss after one term in this past election. caller: i like bernie. i will vote for him. all the republicans all they do is trash. bernie makes sense to me. host: how so? caller: i like his ideas.
the first year of mr. obama's president the he was talking about infrastructure. they impact this by at least 1%. host: nick you are the last on this topic. caller: i want to make a couple of comments on bernie sanders' 90% tax rate. i do not know how he can believe anyone contact them at 90% and they still have money and run a business. one ronald reagan took over in the 80's this is 80%. they do not pay 75%. nowadays it is 35.9. obama paid 18%.
bernie's top tax rate at $.90 they will still be paying 15 or 20% of taxes. it just sounds good to the poor people that you will tax the rich people at 90%. if you tax apple at 90% do you really believe that you will be able to get an iphone afterward? i do not think he will. host: that doesn't for our conversation about the bernie sanders did. we are going to turn our attention to capitol hill and talk to david hawking about the agenda in congress this week including the trade vote in the senate. later to lawmakers will sit down together at this table. the republican of pennsylvania and a democrat of florida. right after this break.
>> in the middle of july we are live at the nation's flagship african-american literary event with panel discussions and author reviews here at the beginning of september we are alive for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage, bringing you been
that shape public policy. washington journal is live with policymakers and journalists in your comments on phone-based and twitter. host: we are back with the senior editor to talk about this agenda and congress. let's talk about this procedural hurdle to begin debate on the presidents trade doherty. it passed 60-37. caller: in the end it was almost the same boat as the key receipt or vote during the first run that the tech to this here in the end there is only one
senator who changed his votes. he had written a permanent and the chairman of the house ways and means committee. he was very ecclesiastical about the trade deal. two days ago he totally flip-flopped. there was no other way to put it. there's nothing different than then there was now. he says it is a bad deal. he came out with mr. ryan. one of his rivals in the senate came out against it. the are essentially looking at the same weighing of the republican party to get off grounds.
host: he said he did not like this because there were that door deals made. what was said? what was promised to get to 60? guest: there have been all manner of side riemann. this is not white like old days were these included things like widening a hideaway. this has mostly to do with trade mostly to republicans. a main concern for republicans especially the most conservative republicans is that there is a essentially a default setting that republicans should not give
rocco, permission to do much of anything. host: the huffington post says while the fate of the ill is a little unknown as these were being taken they notice there was one democratic senator who want around the table. as soon as it got to six the e-voting no indicating he might have been willing to switch if they needed him to vote. caller: he has been there ever since he came back on trade votes. i do not think i can get it totally right. i should look this right. there have been about six really big trade votes.
i think he is great for the three he has betrayed himself as undecided until the last minute. one of the little bit of drama is that for a time it was thought the vote would need to be held open and that they would need to keep this going for as long as two hours. this was a big corporate relocation announcement. he fell obligated to be there. host: they were able to get 13 pro-business democrats. it was led by senator patty
murray of the west coast to our fourth trade for their states. what were they able to save to get them to vote. guest: i believe it is the same list of 13 that has then with trade all along. most have been relatively consistent. some of them have been around long enough to vote for this back in the 1990's to vote for liberalize trade with china. tom carper from delaware has been a pro-trade democrat all along. do you have the list? host: did included ron wyden the two virginia senators.
they have made their brand on doing this with members of the groups wanting to be pro-business and advocate this. it is not that much of a step rise. the big surprise luck continues to make those of us who have been concerned with the partisans of i you have to stop and ink about the case in which most republicans, this was saved because mitch mcconnell that all the live republicans to help out barack obama. where not going to see this again this year.
all they have to do is get the he won. as far as i know they will get the same. maybe one of them will vote as well. final passage is guaranteed. the only thing there is suspense about is that will eventually congress take a run at the bill that was supposed to be with this. host: the trade adjustment assistance is for workers that were displaced because of trade. what happens with that? what is the strategy right now? guest: the strategy right now is to try and persuade more democrat that it is in their best interest, that this is a democratic priority.
now their gamut from two weeks ago did not work. it is in their best interest now to reverse and do what most him a crack -- democrats have traditionally wanted to do, vote for this existing program to extend and it is thing program and strengthen it. it is a bedrock democratic program for many years to the question is how many republicans are willing to make good on what was a handshake agreement. they liberalize the trends pacific partnership. it can only get done with the trade position authority. the notion was a cannot do it without the trade adjustment. you heard nancy pelosi and we owing to vote no on trade
assistance for workers are we want to try to get down. could they still try to do that? guest: that gambit has not worked. nancy pelosi gambled and lost. she gambled and it derailed things permanently. nothing is really permanent in congress. she really did keep her counsel to herself. we do not know until the last day that she was going to do this. now the question is whether she will admit asthma and allow this to go through. host: lawmakers in town till the end of the week and then they go home for the fourth of july recess break.
it may have to do with a number of issues. this is going to ask fire at the and of this month. we will get all of that as well as the supreme ruling on president obama's health care law. we will take all of that. republicans guest: (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002 caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to sign off on the trends pacific partnership. this thing was negotiated in secret. god knows how many congressional members even read this thing. you had to go to a secret room located somewhere and
washington. this was negotiated by corporate lobbyists and where theythis is a terrible legislation that is going to hurt workers hurt the environment. we have among the largest grassroots coalitions in a long time that were opposing this thing, trying to kill it, yet washington dc and the white house have still ignored the will of the american people. yes, i have a question for our guest today. sir, i'm wondering if you think our president, who has clearly shown who sify is on, the side of the corporations, he is planning on catching and although corporation money -- corporate money just like bill clinton did. these free traders -- sir, i'm wondering if you think president obama will veto the legislation
or not sign it if congress does not pass the taa to help these poor displaced workers? host: i am going to leave it there so i can get some other voices. that is the strategy folks are thinking. they are going to make it awkward for the president to vote against assistance for workers. guest: i get that is the strategy. i guess he has not officially said clearly one way or the other, but i think you will take this victory. i think you will sign it. i think he will -- because i think he wants to sign it quickly. i think he will sign it, but he will also try to work to get assistance done. it is not a done deal yet. what you described -- yes, there is a room. it is in the capitol complex.
we all know where it is because we have seen plenty of members want to actually read this. many people think the members don't take the work seriously. this has been one of the big deals of the summer and, yes, i have seen plenty of members going down that hall. in the end, i think the president will sign it so that they can try and finish the negotiations, but he will still keep the pressure on taa. host: south carolina, trials is next. a democrat. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: morning. guest: morning. caller: what i'm seeing about this trade deal -- they need to get everything to do with the trade at one time because time and time again when they do bills and bakery -- they agreed to do it and they shake hands and do the deal, they refuse to
do it. guest: well, i think -- you are obviously expressing the opinion of probably many, if not most, democrats. they sure do wish -- i think they're having a little bit of buyer's remorse. up until two weeks ago, there was this agreement -- it was a little bit more than a handshake agreement. as a matter of parliamentary procedure, they were tied together up until two fridays ago. now they are not. and adding to our right, plenty of democrats are worried that not going to get what they really want. but my guess is they are going to. host: ken in casco, new york. caller: good morning. i like to know how long your guest has been with congressional quarterly and if the quarterly has an editorial policy and, if they do, i am
curious to the policy as regards to citizens united. guest: i have been with congressional quarterly since early 1995. congressional quarterly and will call emerged -- merged in 2009. we have no editorial policy whatsoever. we don't do editorials. our sort of business model is actually to plant ideologically straight down the middle. we try and provide legislative analysis and as to what is motivating both parties, but we don't take a stand, we don't write editorials. we don't have a corporate opinion about citizens united or the trade promotion or anything else. just by way of illustration, one word that is banned from our academy is the word, "reform."
because one person's campaign-finance reform is another persons ruin of the system. host: david hawkings, senior editor at "cq roll call." he has his blog, so you can find his reporting there. he also has this piece recently -- gop not quite ready for health care victory. so if the supreme court were to rule, and we might find out here tomorrow or friday, against the administration on those subsidies for federal exchanges, then what? what did the republicans do? guest: they haven't put forth anything yet. they haven't actually revealed a strategy. there are still some republicans who think that the strategy should be to stand back, to just let the law sort of fall on its own weight. if the subsidies for the people who live in the four states that get the federal exchanges are
taken away, some republicans think that this would -- that their dream would be demoralized, that it would collapse, and that would be great. i think those republicans are a minority. the leadership in the republican party and certainly many other republicans were are running for reelection in tougher a sense -- in tough races don't think that is a good idea. they think the 6 million people -- it is a little bit of an irony here, which is that when the law was written, it told the states you can either set up your own exchanges and if you don't, the federal government will sell the insurance through their exchanges. and most republican run states decided not to set up the exchanges. so most of the people who would be affected by the supreme court striking down the subsidies live in states that are read. -- red. in fact, of the 24 republican
senators seeking reelection next year, 22 of them are from states that could the federal exchanges. and as a result, if you are a republican in a tough reelection race, you don't think it is a very good idea politically to let 6 million people living in the states suddenly have no health insurance. so most republicans are trying to figure out a legislative response. they haven't formally unveiled it. they say they might be able to unveil it within hours or a couple of days of the supreme court ruling. but the strategy is not final. the not quite ready. what we think it is going to be is some version of a carrot and stick approach. congress -- will extend them -- congress will extend them for a next -- the next couple of years, that only with the corresponding stick that the
individual mandate will be taken away, the business mandate will be taken away, and many of the federal minimum standards for policies will be taken away. so if you are a democrat or president obama, that sounds like tantamount to repeal. and he says he is not quick to sign that deal. host: patrick in maryland, a democrats. caller: good morning. i'm calling in reference to the dysfunctional congress. i made totally. they gas tax, in particular, myself and my family members -- this has been going on for some time -- have been buying more fuel-efficient car. and i just bought a car myself and i have effectively caught -- cut my fuel consumption by a full third. i dread the same amount of miles, there has been no change there.
but by buying one third less fuel, i'm paying one less -- one third less you'll tax. for the government to receive the same amount of money, they have to receive -- raise the tax. guest: that is one option, what i thought as you are describing your own situation, you might be going down a different line of argument, which is the whole federal taxation to pay for highways and bridges should be changed from taxing the mi the fuel that you buy to taxing -- taxing the amount of fuel that you buy to taxing the about of miles that you drive. you could actually equip cars with -- with something on their own odometer's that would -- on their odometers that would tax the car. some people think that would be a fair, more equitable way of
taxing things because you are right, a hybrid car, a previous that is out -- a prius, that is out on the interstate is using the interstate as much as a jeep cherokee. i don't think that is going to happen this are, either. neither is an increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline, which, as you may know, has not been increased since -- since my 23-year-old child was one year old. 1993. it has been 18.3 or 18.4 cents a gallon. host: talk about this i partisan legislation to deal with the highway trust fund. -- we built has -- new highway bill
has the next best thing for earmarks. but the leaders of the senate environmental and public's work -- public works committee has come up with the next best thing. guest: you are stopping me. host: oh, sorry. guest: i meant to read that story. host: lets me. the committee will has -- they will have to get the committee's approval of a major project to be named later. the point is though, that there is this bipartisan legislation. can it get to the senate and the house? and will congress not do another short-term -- guest: i think that is really interesting. and i think yes, there are earmarks by another name. i think the odds that this will happen this year at some point are maybe ok, but i think getting it done in the current amount of time provided, not
going to happen. host: by july 31. guest: they go home at the end of this week, they take the week of july 4 off, then they come back and they work three or four straight weeks. then july 31 happens and they go away for a month. it is the usual congressional summer schedule. you know sometimes big things come together very quickly. sometimes there is a sort of sweet spot, a moment where everybody says, let's get this off our plate and get it done. it is the kind of thing that people will talk about. the timing of this is such that most of the big road construction happens in the summer. the summer is when people are taking their vacations. so it is a topic that will be on the minds of many voters and people at town how meetings and in the coffee shops and at the rotary club meetings when they go home in august. so who knows. maybe a miracle will strike.
i am not exactly sure how they would propose to pay for this yet. i don't think they have a plan. but that kind of sweetener is a very smart idea. host: romney in illinois, -- ronnie in illinois, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i remember in the 1990's, i was a traveling refrigerator technician in southern illinois. all the politicians just said how great nafta was going to be. i remember one of them said in particular, factories will have to add on second and third shifts because demand will be so high for our products. and all nafta did was decimate the blue-collar middle-class. it hurt. they screwed us. now we have this new free-trade agreement coming down. and i believe -- i am democrat but i'm listening to donald trump and he is talking about how mexico and china is just
really doing us over. and i hope this time when they screw us over, they give us lubricants because it -- host: all right. guest: southern illinois so was hurt pretty hard by nafta, as i recall. did you work for maytag? he's gone. but where he lives, he is exactly right. at the time nafta was being written, i didn't work for "cq roll call." i know a little bit about the economy there. yeah, they got hurt bad. there was a huge maytag factory in downstate illinois that -- that promised that there was going to be -- let's where people in mexico wanting maytag washers. in the end, most of those jobs went south. so there are -- is lots of pain.
there are definitely some absolute winners and some very, very sad losers. host: margaret in wyoming, in independent. we are talking about this week in congress. a few more legislative days before lawmakers head back to their districts for their fourth of july recess. go ahead, margaret. caller: thank you for taking my call. and i am calling about the free-trade deal. host: ok. caller: it is a very bad deal for the american consumer and it has been for years. i don't know why this is continuing because like the gentleman who was right before me from illinois said, we have lost millions and millions of jobs because of this trade deal. and it is just going to get worse and worse. i mean, we can't get more decimated that we are now. host: favorite hawkings -- david hawkings. guest: right, many of the jobs
have been lost. medical advocate for this say different and many other different kinds of jobs have been created. so those jobs that have been created are in different industries, obviously. less manufacturing, cleaner work , hired technology work. the kind of things that are going to get the economy going into the next century. so just to repeat what i said, there are -- this is one of those issues, unlike the highway bill where you sort of feel the effect of a highway bill more or less equally wherever you go. either the roads are going to get repaved around the country or they are not. with trade, a very, very different thing. there are some pockets of the country where it absolutely has been, you know, economic harm. and there are other places, none of whom seem to be having people on the phones this money, where it has worked.
-- this morning, where it has worked. host: -- a tweet -- the 13 dems will be primaried for sure. and -- when will the public be able to read this bill? guest: i assume this person means when they will be actually able to read the trade deal? god bless you if you want to read it. the way it is explained to me is you have to be a tradable lawyer to really understand what it means. -- a trade lawyer to really understand what it means. we should all remember here that in a few months, maybe or i don't know exactly what the timetable is, but before president obama leaves office, there is going to be another vote on this. we are voting on this time, what the congress is putting on this time, is just essentially to promise that once this deal is done, congress itself will only
vote yes or no, they won't be able to amend it. that is what this bill is. that is what trade promotion authority, used to be called fast-track, that is what it was during the trade debates of the last couple of decades, it is essentially congress' giving it to the president in a way that congress cannot tinker with it. then it will be time for the press -- members to read and decide whether it really is or isn't a good deal for the country. i don't think it is a slamdunk that whatever transpacific partnership gets agreed to look at the same vote. i think there are probably some of those 13 democrats will say i'm reserving the right to vote to know later on. host: we will talk to john next in maryland, a republican. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i would like to ask your guest two quick questions.
number one, does he have a number on the trade deficit we have to with all caps on countries? -- all combined countries? and with all this talk going on, will that it in any way bring this to a level playing field and will we ever reach a level playing field? thank you. guest: well, that is the goal. no i don't. i'm sorry. if i had my magic machine here, i could probably go to the ustr and get the trade deficit, but no, i don't. i know we have a trade deficit and i know some are saying this will shake the deficit over time. -- will shrink the deficit over time. host: the deficit decreased from 50.6 billion in march to 48.9 billion in april. there is some general numbers.
carol in -- a democrat. caller: i just wanted to tell the people that in north carolina, there is a little area that used to be a milltown -- mill town. and when ronald reagan came in with the trade deal, it became a ghost town. an example of what is going on is just recently i ordered a package and it arrived and they put it in an area where it weighed a lot of weight and it was unmovable. so i tried calling ups to let them know they needed to come back, and i got people in taiwan that could hardly speak english. so what we need to do is everybody that votes for this trade deal, we ought to trade them to taiwan. host: all right, carol. colorado, and independent. hi, ernie. caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. my question is -- they really didn't read the affordable care act when they passed it. and here we are, $18 trillion in debt, and now they are doing this tpp and the taa and it is very secretive. they don't want the american public to know what is in it. before they pass it. and then once it is over, it is over. we are toast. if it is so good for the american citizens, why don't they let us decide? let us vote on it and decide what is good for us because our politicians sure don't seem like there are doing it for us now. host: david hawkings, a lot of these calls -- and we have heard it over these weeks of this debate here in washington -- a lot of calls opposed to this. guest: it is very -- this is
constructive to me. i didn't realize and i haven't actually seen national polling on this, whether it is -- host: national polling shows that if you ask people whether you think trade is overall good for america, most people say yes. the energy bill, for those who are opposed -- energy level, for those who are opposed, is very high. guest: it will be interesting to see if anybody -- i would be skeptical of whether a sitting democratic senator who votes for this is actually could be credibly the fetid in his or her own primary. i tend to think not. but maybe i'm wrong. you are right, the energy of this is very energized about this. and it is interesting to me that nobody has called in who thinks
that his or her job or his or her industry is going to benefit from this. i guess it is people who are hurt are more energized that people who have already been hurt and think they will only get hurt more are going to be the most energized. host: another issue to talk about is the import-export bank. it is set to expire at the end of this month as well. what is going -- what is congress going to do? guest: [laughter] it is definitely going to expire. this is a case where the -- i believe the minority view in congress that the import-export bank should be disbanded. but some of the people who have that you are in a position of authority to hold it up. most notably the chairman of the house banking committee, a
republican from texas, has been you know, emphatically opposed to this. thinks it is corporate welfare thinks that it is, in fact, exactly what republicans shouldn't like, which is picking winners and losers. they provide essentially loans to help people buy american goods from certain industries. the aircraft and airline industry is the biggest, sort of most notable beneficiary of this. many republicans think it is a bad idea. it is not how the free market should work. and the united states government should not be in the business of helping some at the expense of others. i think that there is going to be -- there is a relatively strong push on to overtake this, but it seems like they will have to come as what happened so often in the rhythm of congress these days, they are going to
have to go over the cliff for a little while before they come back. but later in the summer, there will be a revived effort. host: and on the website -- that is expiring at the end of this month, at the end of june. so they have basically today tomorrow to -- guest: that is right. they are not supposed to be here friday. host: they are leaving on friday to go to south carolina. guest: that is right. many of them will be in south carolina for the funeral of the pastor of the church. they were supposed to have been gone for the fourth of july anyway on that day. yes, i think there is no bill to is no bill to reauthorize that is ready for the house floor because the chairman of the house banking committee has nature of that. host: jackson in greenville, tennessee. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. but i think the biggest mistake that they would ever make if
they do this trade agreement deal -- we do not need that. and the republicans should have blocked everything the president signs. i do not agree with him all the time because a lot of the time most of the stuff is not good for the country. host: bill in munford, tennessee, a republican. caller: good morning. my question for mr. hawkings -- are you still there? host: yes, your question, go ahead. caller: i have read a lot about this trade bill and i have heard a lot of people speak of it on tv and stuff, but i have also read some stuff, some immigration stuff, that is hidden inside the bell that the public knows nothing about. i'm curious, is this true? is it -- if it is true, why are they hiding stuff in bills?
guest: i am not exactly sure i know what you are talking about. it is so complicated that i'm not sure i can keep it straight. at one point, there were four different bills that were all connected in one package. they have now been sort of broken up into different pieces. at one point, there was more than a handshake agreement. there was a parliamentary agreement to move four different bills that once. one of which has a do with customs enforcement, so maybe there was immigration language in the customs enforcement bill. host: there was -- he might be referring to what steve king was able to get into the trade promotion authority. paul ryan added language that said this would not -- the president cannot use trade deals to loosen any immigration laws. guest: ok. so that is -- when uni first data talking this morning -- whenyou and i -- when you and i
first started talking this morning -- right, what greta said, that you can't use trade liberalization two, at the same time is immigration policy. -- to at the same time, ease immigration policy. how that would planning practice is, i think, unclear. what i will will say is that whenever callers talk about something being done in secret and then imagine something that they know is in there, it is clearly not much that -- not much of a secret. sooner or later, they come out. sometimes some of the bills and the drafting of the health care laws as a big example, are drafted in a hurry and they are push the college -- congress before anybody has a chance to read them. host: and one other detail is
that there was also language included promising that no trade deals could address climate change. in california, an independent. caller: hi, good morning. first, a comment on an earlier caller. it seems irrational given that there are more consumers than producers. it seems logical that producers -- consumers would benefit. given earlier trade bills for instance nafta to have any data on the net benefits of such trade bills to consumers vis-a-vis harm to producers? guest: there are a welter of studies that have been done on this. some of it is try to prove a
negative, what would have happened without the changes in law versus what would have happened -- what has happened with the changes in law. so i think -- i think it is safe to say that on balance, most of the quantitative analysis that has been done about nafta and globalization have said that it is a net plus for the economy. that it has allowed the u.s. economy to grow more than what would have happened without. but that is a big generalization and there is going to be lots of data that argues it the other way. certainly, the labor groups would tell you and the whole question of the environment which is how much environmental degradation has happened because of this that wouldn't have happened otherwise. host: more debate to come. you can tune into c-span2 for the house with a comment for their legislative sessions today. david hawkings, "cq roll call,"
thank you for your time. coming up next, we will talk with republican representative glenn thompson and lois frankel. they will sit down here together . later, our spotlight continues with the "atlantic" magazine and they look at the conservative groups that have been tied to the shooting in a charleston, s.c.. we will be right back.
>> i am not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe that most of these people should be on the couch themselves, rather than able i have never met. on the other hand, when i meet people i don't judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or whether they have eye contact, but what i try to do when i meet people is to listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking to you learn a great deal when they are talking. >> one of the many tragedies was that although he was self-conscious, he was not self-aware. nixon did have a psychiatrist. he was an internist, not
technically a psychiatrist. he said he was careful not to have nixon think he was analyzing him. but next and what to him because he had psychosomatic illnesses in the 1950's. and he gave him some mild therapy, but nixon -- even though he went to one, he hated psychiatrists. and he was afraid, and away, of looking at himself -- in a way of looking at himself. he said, i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all tame. -- time. his lashing out at enemies is of course, what destroyed him. >> talking about the victories and defeats and inner turmoil of richard nixon, focusing on the personal a stories -- personal stories of the president. on c-span's "q&a."
>> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back, sitting with two lawmakers from different sides of the aisle. congresswoman lois frankel democrat of florida, the cochair of the congressional art competition. she is here with her cochair glenn thompson, republican of pennsylvania. we want to get your probably different perspectives on some of these key debates that are happening in congress this week. we want to begin with the house floor. here is the "washington times" this morning. president obama threatened a veto of the bill that would limit epa regulations.
congressman thompson, what do you make of the president threatening to veto this? guest: this is not the first time the president has threatened to veto this bill. he has, only a handful of times follow through with a veto. you know constitutionally, a president will do whatever he chooses to do. i have been very involved in the issues surrounding this interior appropriations bill. i am on the natural resources committee. you know, it has been crafted in a way that we lately -- really do want science to catch up. so when it comes to the energy bill that we are voting on and as a part of this, some limiting amendments, we are just concerned that we are making decisions based on sound science and that all americans especially those who have the
least support, have access to renewable energy. if we take too many of these power plants off the grid, electricity will get to appoint where people are going to struggle just to turn a light switch on. host: congresswoman, what do you think? guest: first of all, thank you. it is great to be with you and my colleague. here is where we will start with an agreement is policies should catch up with science. that is exactly what the president is tying to do. i believe that climate change is real and that man and woman have a large part to do with it. in my own home state of florida, the southern part of florida is actually thinking as we speak. and the earth is heating up. so i believe the president is going in the right direction. we have to reduce our carbon emissions and i think that is responsible not only for here and now, but our children and
grandchildren. host: that debate will unfold today. congresswoman, let me move on to the next one. health care. the supreme court is going to be rolling -- we could hear from them tomorrow or friday -- that the president's health care law to not have subsidies for those exchanges that were credited by the federal government. if the republicans put on the floor in alternative that says ok, we will expand subsidies for two years but in exchange, the individual mandate goes way and other parts of so-called obamacare go away. how do you vote? guest: let me start by saying i am still confident the supreme court will uphold the federal subsidies. we are talking about between six or 7 million people in this country who would be faced with potential highest care -- health care crisis is. just ask a 55-year-old woman with breast cancer what you do without health insurance or a
father who sees his family in an auto accident and they don't have health insurance. to me, it is not either or. you know, i believe the affordable health care act is the right way to go. there needs to be probably some changes. host: would you vote yes or no if they were to extend the subsidies? guest: i am for the subsidies but i would be against repealing affordable health care. host: congressman thompson? guest: this is my seventh year serving the district, i spent 30 years working in health care. i came here with some certainty that we need to do something to improve the access and affordability of our health care system. so, i certainly would -- i made your original question, would i vote for it? yes. i would vote for it. i think that we need to put a bridge for individuals -- and i
don't know what the supreme court is going to do. getting inside the head of a supreme court justice is a pretty scary place. but if they would rule that the subsidies in certain states where it illegal and not according to law, that would impact is significant -- a significant number of individuals in my district. these are folks that would lose a subsidy through no fault of their own. so i would be in favor -- certainly i am in favor of a piece of legislation that would provide them a bridge for a period of time, but would also look at repealing the individual and employer mandates. the folks that i talk with people all the time in my district, and many who are this 12,000 out of 700-5000 who are receiving the subsidy. they are no further ahead. their average premium is maximized by the average to dr. bull. if purchasing health insurance
is an issue, having a deductible that you can afford to be able to get sick and be able to go on access care is extremely important. and the silver deductible almost matches the subsidies in my congressional district. so i have always been dedicated to look for problem-solving solutions that really speaks to make access to health care more affordable and more accessible. we don't have that today. i think there are many things we can do to get to that point. and i look for to the opportunity to work on that. host: and we will have to wait and see what the supreme court decides. it could come, as we said, thursday or friday this week, along with some other major decisions. we are talking with two lawmakers hear about the major debates and congress this week. we want all of you to weigh in with your comments or questions. start dialing and now.
we have talked about environmental issues, health care, and there is also this highway trust fund bill. the short-term solution, number 30 some that congress has done to keep the highway trust fund going, this current one, though expires at the end of july. congresswoman, there is a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in the senate. the six-year bill would increase spending by almost 30% over the current level, bumping it up are more than $2 billion each year. but it doesn't sound like to have resolved the most crucial issue, which is how do you pay for it. guest: i think transportation moves our economy. and if we are going to keep up in a global economy, we have to modernize our transportation. we have to keep our roads going and our bridges and tunnels in good repair. we have to invest in mass transportation. so i have said now for the last couple of years, a reasonable way to fix this trust fund, i
will be there. host: do you see this as a reasonable? this bipartisan bill? guest: i don't know what their funding source is, that i have heard some funding sources which i think are reasonable. whether it is raising its a little bit, the gas tax. gas prices are down right now. it costs the average person who goes in a car, it costs them so much more money if they get stuck in traffic or they hit the pothole and they lose a tire. it costs them a lot more when you have infrastructure that is not in good repair. host: and congressman thompson, what do you think about how to deal with this issue? guest: we need a long-term plan. 5, 6 years will be a minimum for me. if you are going to make tough decisions, let's go for 10. but i think the reality is we
are going to look at a five or six year plan. we need certainty in terms of construction of roads and bridges. in the 30 years i practice health care, on a volunteer side, i was a firefighter emt and rescue technician. i have too many times as a result of motor vehicle accidents, had to remove cars from around victims. and some of that was because of road conditions. we are going to move commerce, it is going to move the economy in this country -- we need to invest in our infrastructure roads, and bridges. this is a question not really -- the funding is not really coming out of transportation infrastructure committees, it is ways and means. i know they have had hearings on this issue, so i think we are going to get -- when we get closer to that deadline, i think we'll see some solutions. the light at the end of the
tunnel. host: the state of pennsylvania known for transportation, so are you for raising the gas tax as a way to pay for this? guest: well, the gas tax is not the most efficient way to fund. as long as we can be assured that we are investing in roads and bridges, i think there is merit there. the problem is we are a victim of our own success. i don't think the gas tax will sustain it because our vehicles are so much more fuel-efficient today. and that is not a bad thing for families. but i don't think long-term, the gas tax is really a practical solution. but it is certainly part of the formula today. i think there are some other creative ways -- repatriation moneys, i have seen that used or short-term and long-term so we can get an early bubble in investment and perhaps use that repatriation money to put towards bringing down our debt,
which is a huge problem. i think there is some very creative ways. iron -- i cosponsored a bill that actually originated in my office before i was there that would expand offshore drilling on publicly owned areas and that proposal would put moneys invest those proceeds into transportation. i'm not sure what combination or any of that or what ways and means is going to propose, but i think we'll see some proposals on the table. host: we will go to jay. caller: good morning, how are you? host: morning. caller: i was really curious about the lady from south florida when she was saying that south florida is sinking. i live in florida and i would like to understand why she says it is sinking because i haven't seen that and i have been here for a long time. there is a lot of different things where science is not cut
up with the policies and policies have not cut up with science, but science is a fact. i don't think we are overheating the planet yet, as far as what she is trying to claim. i really want her to, though, tell me what she is saying when she says south florida is sinking. guest: very simple. the sea level is rising. and it is measured. you know, the thoughts are that by 2050, parts of south florida will be underwater. so listen, you don't really have to be a scientist to feel the hurricanes we are experiencing, the change in weather systems. those are very good, practical examples of climate change that is affecting us now. guest: if i can, i agree. you don't have to be a scientist to see climate change. and we don't have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to prove something that -- if
you come to my house, i live in a valley that was carved by thousands of the device. if i take around in my backyard long enough, i can find fossils of sea creatures. you know, the climate does change. the debate shouldn't be on whether the climate changes. it is how you prepare for it. and i have been very frustrated with this administration because they put very little emphasis and climate change. to me, that is extremely important. my congressional district has some of the world's best hardware cherry. -- hardwood cherry. it provides natural resources. yet we should be looking at if the temperature over the next century is going to moderate one degree or another, i don't know which way it is going, whether warmer colder, what does it do to that asset? that commodity?
i think the climate is going to change in florida because look at how the world has changed. where there were a lot of people know people, it is pretty arrogant to think that climate change is not going to occur. it is a little bit arrogant to think that we can stop it altogether. but we should recognize it and prepare. host: did you want to add something? guest: i agree, we should prepare. and i do think that the president has not had a because it turned congress here -- not had a recalcitrant congress here. congressman, i think you are more open-minded than many, but we have many colleagues who don't recognize climate change. in my home state, our own governor has forbidden the people who work for him from mentioning the world -- word "i'm a change." -- "climate change."
there are going to be a lot of steps to take to reduce the carbon footprint, but also in terms of our building codes and so forth because it is happening one way or the other. host: eddie in mitchell indiana. a democrat. caller: good morning, ma'am. i want to say first of all, i like your hair. but my comment is on the affordable care act. i really don't know that it has helped or hurt anybody, but i really do think in my heart that if the democratic party would have went along with the president and try to get all this ironed out in the first shot, we wouldn't be having the problems we have now. thank you, ma'am. host: what do you mean, go along with the president and get it ironed out? caller: i try to watch as much as c-span as i can, and it just seems to me like they were more worried about getting themselves did back -- reelected back to
their positions then they were tried to help the american people get health care to be healthier people. host: let's take it this way congressman thompson, where do you think -- and congresswoman -- where do you think there is, ground on changes that could be made? -- is common ground on changes that could be made? guest: i was here during the debate and i agree with your caller. i was someone with 30 years of health care experience. as a volunteer, i had worked on ideas on how to make health care more accessible affordable, to make sure that patients always have that final decision-making. that the decisions would be made by a politician or a bureaucrat or somebody from a health insurance company. so i think what we are seeing today -- the supreme court is playing its role in the judicial branch, were something really hasn't worked out -- where
something really hasn't worked out and they are trying to question whether it is legal or not. there is just a lot of things we need to do in terms of -- and we should start with affordability because i don't think health care has become more accessible and more affordable. the fact that you have premiums that are pushing through thousand dollars, and that is for the silver plan, that is money that -- and that is per individual. that is not her family. -- per family. if we truly did this in a way where everyone was welcome to the table, i think we could come up with some really good solutions to improve affordability, improve access. host: congresswoman? guest: first of all, let me -- thank you, caller, for the question. in terms of a fixed, to me, the
biggest fixed would be -- fix would be what has called the medicaid inclusion. in states like mine, we have close to one million people who are hard-working, but low-wage earners, who have now been because of a supreme court decision, left out of the subsidies for health care. so i think that we need to fix that. but like any big piece of legislation, there is always going to be some unintended consequences. so that is an example of a fix. but there is no cooperation here right now in congress. i mean, the congress -- the republicans in the house -- i don't want to make this partisan, but they have tried to repeal obama care 50, maybe 60 times. now you can't be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition.
children can get on their parents insurance. you can get free preventative care. women can get mammograms. you can get birth control without a co-pay. a lot of good things. the cost of medicare has gone down. so, the cost of health care was out of control really before the affordable health care act. so we have seen the cost of medicare now slowing down and 11 million more people in this country now have access to health care. guest: i think, when it comes to medicaid, they have a card. and the folks on medicaid, they are on medicaid. subsidies aren't involved here. but medicaid only pays $.40 to $.60 of every dollar cost. so a lot of doctors will not see people on medicaid.
if you cannot see a physician you do not have access to health care. last week, were repealed the medical device tax, which was a big part of the funding mechanism. 26 democrats joined us. that is a pretty strong bipartisan vote. host: i'm sure that will be brought up as we take more phone calls. john in pennsylvania, a republican. you are on the air. caller: hi. first off, i would like to remind each of these representatives that we live in a republic established to maintain my liberty. as far as the highway bill goes, 65% of every dollar goes to inner-city buses and light rail. if you want to fix our roads put 70% of the money in rural and urban areas. most people in urban cities
don't even own cars, let alone buy gasoline. by the way, the chairman is my congressman, unfortunately, and these rural areas with extreme poverty are paying for poor people to ride on buses. you want to fix our roads, you need to stop taking my money and my freedom and my hard work. that is what my liberty is. host: congresswoman, you look like you disagree. guest: i don't know where he is getting his statistics, but large parts of our population are in the cities. so i don't -- thank you for the call and i hear your frustration. my feeling would be, and i'm sure my colleague would agree that we want fair distribution of the funds. right now, the congress -- crisis we are facing is that if
we don't come up with a fix, we are going to run out of funds. so we will be funding any road. to just reiterate what thompson said before, short-term fixes don't work because it takes a long time to design and plan transportation infrastructure. whether it is a road, a bridge, a tunnel, or mass transportation, you need to give whoever is doing it six years -- you said 10 years -- it takes a while to get it done. host: let me put another issue on the table for all of you, and that is trade. congress voted to give the president fast-track authority. the senate yesterday just a cup trade promotion authority. on tied it from worker assistance, and that passed a legislative hurdle in the senate. it looks like they can easily get that majority. and the worker assistance legislation will come back as a separate bill to the house
before you all leave. representative thompson, how did you vote the second time around? guest: i voted for trade adjustment. trade adjustment is a strange name. i cochair with a good friend of mine -- we cochair the caucus. we work hard to, what i think invest in what is america's number one asset, and that is a qualified, trained workforce. so i have a hard time understanding how anyone could vote against trade assistance because it is job training. if you can provide people with job training to truly fill positions that are open or available today, most employers have positions they can't find individuals to fill. so i am supportive of it and i do hope it comes back up. i think it is extremely important. if you lose your job you have access to job training because of abuse of legislation i helped
to write, -- because of a piece of legislation which i helped to write. if you lose your job as a result of trade, and you have to really documents that because a foreign trade took your position away, then all that would be, if you qualify, what trade adjustment does is give you just a little bit more money for job training. because you have a certain level of competency and to get fine-tuned, you may need a little more help. who can be against job training? host: congresswoman? guest: well, i haven't seen the exact proposal yet, but let me say this. let me go back to the fast track, which i oppose. and that is because i felt like it is millions of jobs at stake here the country. the consumer health labor standards around the world. and i felt it was like congress turning our backs because we
were basically giving -- giving any president -- i thought was not the right way to go. host: how did you vote on trade assistance? guest: trade assistance was connected -- it was a connected package, so i voted against it. in theory, i absolutely believe in trade assistance. i believe representative thompson is correct in terms of -- and we do expect -- there will be lots of good people through the fault of their own will lose jobs because of trade agreements and we should try to give them a step up to try get back to work. but i want to make sure that there is enough money in the package and see how it is going to affect the fast track. host: gabriel in north carolina. a democrat. you are on the air. caller:
-- caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to go back to the health care issue. i was a nurse for about eight years. i have a lot of experience, myself, in the health care industry, so i have a good idea of the in's and the outs. at this point, i really feel that the health care industry and the affordable care act does a lot of good things, but, at the same time, we are not addressing the most important and valuable part, the absolute prevention. when we look at our dietary restrictions and what we enable our own children, with every holiday that comes passing by, they are inundated with sugar and candy. diabetes is on the rise in juvenile settings. it's unheard of to be the way it currently is. and nobody is addressing this. it is just bluntly, gluttony
eat as much as you can -- just host: what do you think of the fda banning trans fats? caller: the main issue is the saturated fat and the overabundance of sugar and the fact that they don't disclose a daily percentage of what sugar should actually be. high fructose corn sugar was used because it was free and plentiful. it was cost effective. host: let's take up this issue of prevention. congressman? guest: prevention is not something new. there are folks who talk about the affordable care act. it is likely are claiming we as a nation have never worked before toward prevention. as a former health care professional for three decades that's just not true. we have medicare policy that provided access to recipients for screenings. all of this is so important. i learned as a boy scout that it is far better to do prevention.
prevention is the best part of first aid. we have been doing prevention. that's been involved in our health care system for some time. in fact, many of the programs that are preventative within the affordable care act work repetitive -- were pre-existing. they were swept into the overall language. first of all, thanks to gabriel for his work as a nurse, now going to medical school. having available, qualified providers in underserved urban areas is a crisis we need to pay attention to. if you don't have a qualified provider, i don't care how you pay for it, it doesn't happen. i'm also on the nutrition committees, both in education workforce and in the agriculture committee. we are looking at nutrition. we are trying to look at nutritional programs. we want people to have access to what they need, but also, we want to make sure that the access to the right kind of foods for the different programs we have -- snap wic.
the student meals, lunches, that type of thing. host: congresswoman? guest: i agree with the collar and representative thompson that prevention is absolutely -- the caller and representative thompson that prevention is absolutely important. the affordable care act is a lot of prevention. we are looking at new ways to pay doctors, looking more towards results-oriented payment , rather than fee-based, where you pay for every single test. no co-pays for mammograms. access to birth control. children on their parents health care. free medical checkups. prevention is the way to go. it's also keeping more people out of emergency room's, which is the last place you want to
have to go for your health care. caller: we're talking with --host: host: we're talking with two congresspeople. glenn thompson, serving his fourth term. joined by congresswoman lois frankel, second term, democrat from florida, sits on foreign affairs and transportation and infrastructure. we've got about 15 minutes left. we will continue taking phone calls. hi brett. good morning. caller: good morning. i had two points to make. i'm enjoying the discussion very much. miss frenkel said something -- miss frankel said something interesting about the supreme court, that they wouldn't make a decision certain way because it would throw a lot of people off of insurance. my understanding of the law is they should not do things because they should or shouldn't, but because of the law. if they interpret the law, it comes down to how is it written.
then it is up to congress to make changes about what should or should not happen. miss frankel said something about infrastructure and the cost of that, but didn't we pay for that with the first two stimulus packages? host: congresswoman? guest: first of all, thank you for your call. the supreme court is supposed to interpret the law. i feel pretty confident they are going to look at the law as a whole. the law as a whole was to get more people insured and to allow subsidization for those who could not afford it. whether it is hope or expectation, i hope and i expect the result will be a good one. and in terms of the infrastructure, i think across both sides of the aisle we understand that we have roads and bridges and tunnels all over this country and mass transit
that need to be modernized. what a brutal winter we just had, not in florida. i live in paradise. i know representative thompson could probably tell you the roads are pretty beat up right now. host: let me go to a democrat in washington. caller: i would like to make two points. first point is, the public wanted universal health care. that's what he was going for in the first place, and the republicans stonewalled it. an open rule that gave the republicans trying to stonewalled it 500 amendments. 300 amendments are in the affordable care act. when it came time to finally vote on it, they said, hey, you guys, you're not going to go
home for christmas. you've got 500 members. let's go with it. and they withdrew their amendments. that's one of the reasons the affordable care act is in the position it is in. host: let me let the congressman respond. guest: i was here for this debate. that's not exactly what happened. i remember almost an all nighter in education workforce committee, marking up the affordable care act. i will tell you none of the republican amendments got through, but we did spend a lot of hours -- actually was very little time to read the bill beforehand, the way it was released. i respect the caller and appreciate the caller calling in, and i respect his opinion, but i do politely disagree that the public wanted universal health care. obviously, the caller wanted universal health care. i respect that. the most recent polling shows that people wanted subsidies.
the folks who are most likely to benefit from the affordable care act, 40% of them had other insurance that they were -- that they lost as a result of this, that they could not keep. and 65%, somewhere around 65% of these folks felt like they were forced into the affordable care act, into the obamacare exchanges. if 65% of the people on subsidies feel like they were forced into it, i don't think that communicates a very warm and fuzzy, positive feeling about it. host: let's get to another issue that is something you both agree on, the congressional art competition. congresswoman, if i could start with you, what is the congressional art competition and why is it important, do you think? guest: we invite students from all over the country -- we have 435 members of congress. each is asked to have a
competition with students in a district to submit pieces, art pieces. they are judged in different ways. i have some beautiful museums in my district, so i have a representative from each museum who selects the winning student. i love this contest. one thing i do as a hobby is art. i paint. i invite you to come over to my office someday. some people put autographs up- -- put photographs up. i put paintings up. it is a way to completely relax and get away from the world. when i get into my painting studio, which is very small, i put some music on, and it is a great way to relax. for me art transcends all the conflicts that we have in the world. i will use a painting as an example.
take mona lisa. 9 million visitors go to the louvre every year, probably to see that painting, from all over the world. it doesn't matter what your religion is, what language you speak, what your politics are art transcends all of that. and it also outlives us all. you can go to any museum anyplace in the world and get a sense of the history. i could go on and on about our. people think -- about art. people think, what is art, you can't make money with art. we do have a lot of starving industry -- starving artists but the art industry is about a $700 billion industry in the united eights. it -- united states. it means a lot of jobs and a lot of enjoyment. host: glenn, how did you get involved in this? art is submitted from each kid -- from the kids in the
district. who gets to see it? where does it hang? guest: is a privilege and honor to serve with the congresswoman -- eight is a privilege and honor to serve with -- it is a privilege and honor to serve with the congresswoman as co-chairs. about 650,000 students have participated. i don't draw a good stick figure. it's hard to recognize it as a stick figure when i'm done with it. this is about encouraging i think, artistic expression and innovation. i agree with the congresswoman very few of these kids, although these are very talented high school students -- they hang in the capital for a year. they are in a place that is one of the most well visited
popular tourist attractions in the world. very few of these young artists will probably go on to make their living as artists but there is not a young person today that won't benefit from developing their artistic and innovation skills. i don't care what job you have. it may be a member of congress. but the more innovated you can be in your problem solving and doing your job, whatever that work is, -- more innovative you can be in your problem-solving and doing your job, whatever that is, the better off you will be. private schools can participate. i've had home schoolers place in my competition in the past. i have a local gallery, the winkler gallery of fine arts. peter winkler -- perry winkler will be one of our speakers this afternoon when we gather these artists together. we host -- we gather the art there my
district, in this gallery. then we have local artists, both amateur and professional, who evaluate and pick the winners. that is not something i would be qualified to do. guest: i want to point out that, i think very disappointingly, what we're seeing across the country is less and less money being spent funding in schools for art. i think 60% of students in schools do not have access to the arts, even though there is a good correlation between a good student and production as a student and access to the arts. host: interesting. thank you both for talking about that. we have just a few minutes left. let me take a few more phone calls. john in madison, wisconsin an independent. caller: high. -- hi. the reason i called him is my wife is a nurse anesthetist --
called in is my wife is a nurse anesthetist. i am a cpa. i have looked at health care the last 35 years. if you want to improve accessibility and lower the cost, you need to do two things. congress needs to do a better job of negotiating drug prices for pharmaceuticals bought for medicare. my understanding is that the premium we are paying is somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 billion per year, that's how much we are overpaying for pharmaceuticals. the other thing is, there is talk of cutting residency funding. this would affect my daughter -- this won't affect my daughter. but if you cut the amount of residency funding, you are going to cut the number of residency slots and, ultimately, the number of people who are accessible to patients. that's going to lessen care and drive up prices.
host: i will have both lawmakers jump in on this. guest: let me start with resident funding. resident funding goes back to what i see as the imminent threat to health care, the lack of providers. we should not be cutting our funding for residency programs. we need to figure out how -- what they did in the 1960's went through programs to encourage individuals to pursue medical degrees, both family practice and specialists, so that we can make sure we have continuity of care in rural areas and underserved urban areas. that is important. on the pharmaceutical side, yeah, this is what happens when government gets involved in price things. government is not very good at this type of thing. if we allowed the free market to occur and we allowed competition to occur and we opened up, really if we worked with all aspects in the pharmaceutical profession --
one of the things that always upsets me is, the last time they worked on this line of questioning, they didn't bring to the table our local pharmacists, our community pharmacistss. -- phrarmacists, the people on the front lines. we can do a better job certainly. host: congresswoman, your thoughts? guest: thank you for your call. i think you have very good insight. as more people get access to health care, we are going to need more providers. it would be foolish to cut off funding for residents. i agree with the caller on that point. we do negotiate for the pharmaceuticals for the veterans, and get a lower cost. i know i have signed onto bills that would allow this for medicare. i agree with the caller. what the pharmaceuticals come back and argue is that they need extra money in order to do the research. research is very expensive.
i will be with the caller and say i think we should negotiate and get those prices down. host: houston, texas, a republican. hi mike. caller: two quick points. in regard to obamacare, i agree with the gentleman from pennsylvania. consumers don't have ownership here it there is no ownership, there is no sensitivity by the consumer to cost. when everything is free, congresswoman frankel people know it is free. they get in line. free is great. free is utopian. lasik surgery 20 years ago was more expensive than it was today. it is even better results today too. and consumers are sensitive to cost. bedside manner of the doctors. and availability is there. it is a clear fact that, when consumers have ownership of the cost or at least are involved in the cost, prices will come down.
it works every time it is tried. one final point, with regard to infrastructure, i'm wondering, congresswoman, we spent $867 billion on a stimulus bill. did you think taxpayers should learn where that shovel-ready money, $867 billion went before the next election? guest: do you want me to answer? host: sure, go ahead. we will get both of your final thoughts. guest: thank you very much for your call. on health care. it's great when you have access to health care. i think your statement is very good in theory, but it really wasn't working. there are millions and millions of americans who still do not have access to health care, but there are 11 million more who do because of the affordable care act. and when someone doesn't have
access to health care, we all pay for that. that person, instead of being able to go for a checkup and maybve finding out and getting treated for pneumonia or breast cancer or whatever, ends up in an emergency room with the disease much further along and then who pays for that? if they can't pay for it, we all pay for it. our insurance goes up. the number one cause of bankruptcy in the united states is inability to pay a health care bill. we all suffer when other people can't get access to health care. and in terms of stimulus spending, let me just say this -- i believe in government transparency and absolutely the government should always disclose how we spend our money
except, i guess maybe for high intelligence areas. other than that, i believe in transparency. host: congressman, your final thoughts? guest: on the stimulus, i did not vote for the stimulus. it was sold -- i remember the messaging that the democratic party did on it. it was about how it was going to be great for infrastructure. i think roads and bridges utility, sewer, water, broadband but in the end, the bill, as it came up for a vote, included very little infrastructure. the messaging was heavy on infrastructure, but very little investment. i think it should be transparent. i think most people would be appalled to find out what it actually spent money on. and i think wasted money on. i don't think it really saw value. i kiddingly refer to it as the stimuless, as i see what it didn't do for creating jobs and
reducing unemployment. on health care, i think whatever the supreme court does, if the supreme court strikes down these subsidies -- i think part of the bridge we need to have for the folks, for example, the 12,000 individuals who will lose their subsidy through no fault of their own in my district and throughout the country -- part of it is eliminating the individual employer mandate. i would like to see people be able to take, for whatever peroid -- period of time the extension is, and to be able to use that money in the free market. health care is not more affordable or more accessible. many cannot get a physician to treat them. they don't have access to health care. it only pays $.40 to $.60 on a dollar. we will be talking about health care for a very long time. and i look forward to the debate. host: this conversation will
continue. we want to thank you both for talking to our viewers congressman glenn thompson congresswoman lois frankel. it has been a pleasure. thank you for coming on together. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will continue with our spotlight on magazine series. we will talk with david graham of the atlantic -- "the atlantic." we will take a look at what's happening in south carolina, the confederate flag, and violence in black churches. we will be right back. >> while congress is out for the
july 4 holiday break "booktv" takes over prime time on c-span2. monday, the war on terror. tuesday, book publishing. wednesday, the digital age. thursday, biographies and memoirs. friday, books on science and technology. watch our special primetime edition starting monday, june 29, 8:30 p.m. eastern. tune in every weekend for the latest in nonfiction books. "booktv," television for serious readers. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time, and, like presidents and first ladies, a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? "first ladies -- presidential
historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women," inspir ing stories of fascinating women who survived the white house. available through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in our last hour of "the washington journal ." part of our spotlight on magazines series, today looking at "the atlantic." there have been several stories about what happened in south carolina last week. i want to begin with your look at the council of conservative citizens. you label them and they have been labeled by other groups as "a white supremacist group that inspired a racist manifesto." what is the council of conservative citizens? guest: it is descended from the
1950's and 1960's groups, the white citizens councils founded as a sort of coalition of businessmen and other people to oppose integration efforts basically. these groups kind of died away after integration was legally mandated. but in the 1980's, this group was founded by a former field organizer who felt there needed to be some sort of effort to oppose integration efforts. if you look at their manifesto they think rings like -- they say things like, we think the european-american heritage is important. a host politicians, they give money for things like maintaining the kevin federline -- they host politicians. they give money for things like maintaining the confederate flag in public spaces. they have condemned the charleston attacks and dylann roof. they said, he may have been reading the material we put out.
we believe black on white crime is a serious problem, but we distance ourselves from these events. it is more about opposing integration and the inclusion of the european-american heritage. host: what is their time to what happened in south carolina? -- their tie to what happened in south carolina? guest: dylann roof became interested after -- interested in black on white crime. he started reading about these after trayvon martin and became concerned there was racial violence going on, and he needed to do something to speak out against it and stop it. host: and the ties to politicians? guest: the president of the group has given about $65,000 to arrange a politicians -- to a range of politicians, mostly conservative republicans, some more mainstream republicans
including presidential candidates, who have now said they will donate the proceeds or give it back. host: how large is this group? are they still influential in politics? guest: that's tough to sayguest: . the southern poverty law center tracks these says they are the lord -- taxis and said they are the largest -- tracks these and says they are the largest group of its kind. they distance themselves after speaking to the groups. their founder died in march. he started the group in the 1980's. host: this group -- where are they on the issue of taking down the confederate flag? guest: they were a prominent voice -- the flag was flown over the capitol building, then, in 2000,
it was moved to its site on the capitol grounds. they were one of the more prominent groups fighting against that. they thought it was a step against this "heritage" of the confederacy, so they were against that. host: now we see the governor of south carolina say that we believe the flag should come down from the statehouse grounds. you have a story that said the fight against confederate symbols spreads. it's beyond south carolina now. where else is the issue being taken up, and where is the debate headed? guest: i think the most prominent place is mississippi where the confederate battle flag is in the corner of the flag. it has been there for more than a century now. it is unclear how the debate will proceed. there is an emotional resonance in south carolina. there is not in mississippi. voters spoke in 2001 in a referendum.
i can see others saying that it needs to be pulled. there is a tongue of confederate money, everywhere across the country, mostly -- a ton of confederate money, everywhere across the country, mostly in the south. when you see "black lives matter" on monuments and across -- you see high schools being named for confederate generals being renamed. there is a level of effort. host: how has the politics of this shifted? guest: very quickly. i think nobody expected how fast south carolina would move. south carolina had the flag for a long time. even when it was moved into thousand, it was really acrimonious. -- moved in 2000, it was really acrimonious. it was seen as an redeemable -- an irredeemable thing.
you saw senator lindsey graham say, i don't think we should distract from the real issue material racism. by monday, he said we saw this in merchandise. amazon said it would not sell confederate flags. ebay said the same thing. these flags have been sold since these outlets have been around. greta wodele brawner: we want our viewers to weigh in on this as well. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. someone said this debate over this flag is becoming so big that people are forgetting about what happened at the church in charleston. and this violence against the people that have come to the church that day. violence at black churches is nothing new.
you wrote about that for the atlantic. david a. graham: there is a long history of this. it is as old as the united states. use the riots in philadelphia in 1790 where black churches are attacked. you see black churches being attacked after the civil war during reconstruction and on into jim crow. you see attacks against churches -- the 1963 bombing in birmingham is the one everyone knows best where for little girls were killed. -- four little girls were killed. in the 90's there was a string of arson against black churches in the south. president clinton spoke against them and there was a federal panel that went to investigate. although the causes are different, the idea of a ttacks against black churches is an important street of american history. greta wodele brawner: you posed the question, how much has
changed? david a. graham: i think a lot and a little. there is a common thread in the attacks. there are changes. in the birmingham attack, it was a group of klan members. there was an organized effort. you had very strong institutional racism. now you see systemic racism. if you look at outcomes in south carolina, there is large racial disparities. dylann roof appears to have been a lone actor. you see the council of citizens condemning the attack. greta wodele brawner: we are talking about violence in black churches and the debate over the confederate flag. president obama and leaders in congress plan to head to charleston on friday. the president will be giving the eulogy for the pastor of that church. some of the leadership in congress is also planning to attend. go to c-span.org for more details. a republican in georgia is up first. go ahead. caller: [inaudible]
greta wodele brawner: you've got to listen through your phone and turn your tv down. a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. my contention about this issue is that there wasn't -- this wasn't something that came to these politicians as an epiphany of any sort. the bottom line is that with the killing of the parishioners at the church, the public outrage became so great that they basically had no choice in the matter. and the reverend of that church is a great man. also served as a state senator. to me, it just reinforces my cynicism about the political class. in that state and baby in d.c. as well. that it took one of their own getting murdered before any
urgency was -- before any urgency was applied. that is the sad part of all this. i thank you for taking my call. david a. graham: i think it is a sad truth of the civil rights movement for a long time that it often requires deaths before politicians do anything. you see major movement on the civil rights act after the birmingham bombing. you see legislation after martin luther king's death. it is often the case that the issues are out there and people know they are an issue, but the only thing that will actually get the balls moving on the political process is somebody dying. it is a really tragic fact. david a. graham: what happened after the birmingham bombing, legislatively? greta wodele brawner: john f. kennedy spoke shortly after the bombings the next day and condemned them. the bombing was part of tension over a court order to integrate the schools. it was from those speeches and
the civil rights act of 1964 got underway. it was not passed while kennedy was alive, but lyndon johnson signed into law the following year. david a. graham:caller: my name is lisa. i'm from oklahoma. i am so sorry about what happened. that is so evil. how a person can go into a church of god and stay there for an hour and just kill people for no reason. and people are taking it out on the flag. we have a lot of people that died for that flag. people are crying, take it down your take it down. . we have veterans african-americans, brothers against brothers. native americans died for that
flag. it should stay up there. greta wodele brawner: take a listen to what hillary clinton had to say running for the democratic nomination. she was in misery yesterday and she weighed in on this debate. here she is. >> i know it's tempting to dismiss a tragedy like this as an isolated incident. to believe that in today's america, bigotry is largely behind us. that institutionalized racism no longer exist. s. but despite our best efforts and our highest hopes america's long struggle with race is far from finished. we can't hide from hard truths about race and justice. we have to name them and own them and change them. that is why i appreciate the
actions begun yesterday by the governor and other leaders of south carolina to remove the confederate battle flag from the statehouse. [applause] recognizing it as a symbol of our nations racist past that has no place in our present or future. it shouldn't fly there. it shouldn't fly anywhere. [applause] and i also commend walmart for deciding to remove any products that uses it. [applause] greta wodele brawner: hillary clinton on the campaign trail yesterday weighing in on this debate. david graham, what are you hearing from the politicians versus what lawmakers -- you
talked about john f. kennedy -- saying when this happened in the past? david a. graham: i think on the flag issue there has really been a sense among many lawmakers for a long time that the flag ought to come down and that is really a relic. the case they are concerned about primary voters, they are concerned about voters who are really upset about this. many people who have spoken in support of the flag or declined to say much in the past are republicans. the voters who are really upset about the flag are not going to vote for them anyway. the voters who really think it is important to keep the flag up are going to vote for them. so they are disinclined to speak out. you see national pressure that is so great that they are kind of giving in. i think it is interesting, there was a poll earlier this year. 50% of south carolinians said it should stay up but they also said it was probably better for the states representation. -- reputation. caller: good morning.
we are putting symbolism over substance here with this confederate flag deal. it is the battle flag of virginia, the battle flag of the south. these were all american soldiers in a time when america was at war with itself. it is a tribute to those that fought for a cause. now, if walmart wants to ban the confederate flag and amazon and ebay, they should ban pictures and flags of che cguevara, a communist who killed thousands of christians and gays in the pursuit of communism. all lives matter, not just black labs, but all lives. it was a terrible thing that happened in the church down there. the person was truly evil and he should face the ultimate penalty for what he did. but you can't go blaming a flag for it. look at the person.
look at the mentality of what is going on. this country is in a downward spiral. 47% of the people in this country are looking for or are receiving benefits from the government. there is no inspiration to go out and work. greta wodele brawner: before you go down that path, i want to stick to what you are saying. go ahead david graham. david a. graham: i think he is right about the question of symbolism. people who believe the flag should come down say two things about that symbolism. one it is a symbol of rebellion against the u.s. government. people who were rebelling wanted to secede from the union. the rebellion was really about slavery. it was about white supremacy. the question is not is this symbolism, but what does the symbolism mean. i think a lot of people think that it is really antiquated for the simple to be here. maybe this is not about directly related to shootings in a church, but it is long past time
for the flag to come down. david a. graham:caller: good morning. the last caller was totally wrong. i don't understand what he was talking about 47%. that rebel flag represents. evil and pure evil and hate. we are living in 2015. that flag was during the civil war. the union won. we are not flying nazi flags around the country. that flag represents hate. dylann roof is in photographs holding that flag. that flag represents. s pure evil and hate. i am glad republicans and democrats and independents are having a say on this.
regular people are just coming together. greta wodele brawner: that is the conversation we're having this morning. we want to keep getting everybody's thoughts on this. the debate over the confederate flag. david graham from the atlantic writing about the history of violence against black churches in this country. arnold in kansas, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning c-span. i wish that everyone who would speak on such would do a little more fact checking. the hypocrisy and political correctness in this country is starting to turn my stomach. number one, hillary clinton in 2008 wore a confederate flag pin on her suit when she was campaigning in alabama and south carolina and mississippi. it was also bill clinton that signed the authority for arkansas to fly the confederate
flag over the capital of arkansas. it is a symbol, that is all it is. the political correctness in this country is pure hypocrisy. i equate the flag of the united nations flag with the nazi flag of germany. the confederate flag was nothing more than symbolizing a seceded hopefully to be nation, which thank god never occurred. that is all that it recognizes. i just wish that the young people who appear on these tv programs would do their fact checking. before they buy into the hypocrisy of the left or the right. david a. graham: i think there is a real shift going on in the politics. arkansas when bill clinton was governor and now has -- this flag is designed to pay tribute to a confederate flag.
as recently as 2003, you had howard dean saying i want to be the candidate who appeals to the guy with a confederate flag on his pickup truck. it is pretty hard to imagine many candidates and particularly democrats saying that today. i'll it except shifted a lot in the last decade. i think an interesting thing about the flag we need to reconsider is, well it is a symbol of the confederacy it really disappeared largely after the civil war. it was only revitalized the 1890's and the 1960's as a symbol of southern opposition to integration. south carolina ran up the flag in 1961. it didn't fly before then. it may be a symbol of the confederacy, the cases in which it was flown up were often cases of trying to highlight white supremacy and opposition to black equality. greta wodele brawner: the color might be referring to a story that is on the daily caller website.
-- arkansas governor bill clinton in tennessee seliger al gore flaunted the symbol during their 1992 campaign for the white house. rectangular campaign pins of the confederate flag were passed around as well as circular confederate flag pins showing both clintons and gore's heads with the words sons of the new south emblazoned on the pin. that is on the daily caller's website. clay in south carolina a republican. caller: hello. you cannot bury our history. due to the circumstances that happened in charleston, it was just hatred. and a lot of people that have that flag do not feel that way. they're just proud of where they are and where they are from.
and they have no hatred towards anyone. greta wodele brawner: what do you think about this debate happening in your state legislature to take the confederate flag down? caller: i think they're just trying to pass the ball to something else. let's just get some serious facts. there's just so much hatred. greta wodele brawner: how do you deal with that, clay? caller: just try not to be part of it. and love everyone. greta wodele brawner: ok. caller: we all have to get along whether the flag hangs or not. it doesn't represent who we are. greta wodele brawner: all right. that was clay. ed is in d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. i agree with hillary clinton that the flag shouldn't be flown anywhere. we have to go -- the civil war is over with. this flag is offensive.
it is treasonous. i disagree with the caller that said it represents our nation's history and so forth. things change. even though hillary clinton may have worn a pin or other people may have worn pins, things change. we must go on and be united in this nation. this is treason against our people. we need to eliminate this statement. we to go on. greta wodele brawner: ed, our connection is not so great with you. we will leave it there. he was just talking about uniting this country. what we know about what the president is going to say at this eulogy? david a. graham: we don't have a great deal of detail. he is going to speak about
unity, violence. we have seen him do this so many times. eulogies have been obama's signature speech at this point in his presidency. greta wodele brawner: michael in illinois and independent. you are next. caller: it is a giant waste of time. other countries like germany have re: outlawed dumb symbols of racism and slavery. it is illegal to show the nazi symbol there so they use the confederate flag. and here we are, it is all we are talking about. how about talking about the children that are starving, the jobs, the economy, immigration? we are wasting our time. this debate should have been put to rest 20 or 30 years ago. we are wasting our time. we have real issues. get rid of this racist symbol. everyone knows it was just made for white people because they
didn't want to do the work. they were lazy. that's why they had slaves. anyone who says they are proud of the people that fought for that are just plain idiots. that makes no sense. it was wrong. get rid of the symbol. but move our country forward on things that really matter to regular people. thank you. greta wodele brawner: gary is next. a republican in florida. caller: i'm wondering if you are going to take it down. should be retired with some honor by its southern heritage preservation, even reenactors that received the flag with honor? otherwise you just go to the other side of it and put out the fire with gasoline. greta wodele brawner: gary is wondering what is going to happen with the flag. there is talk of being moved to a museum or a different location. the legislature hasn't decided. the governor doesn't have any authority to take it down. david a. graham: that's right. the debate is good to take a while. yesterday was open debate.
the debate probably won't happen until after the funeral. we are at sometime next month. it looks like it is likely to be voted against but it is not majority in either house so far declared. we will see what they decide. greta wodele brawner: it was interesting yesterday over on the senate side, you heard from paul thurmond, the son of the late senator strom thurmond. he said it is time to take it down. david a. graham: that's right. it is a really remarkable step. the dixiecrat presidential candidate in 1948. greta wodele brawner: tina in wisconsin, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i really love c-span. it's really informational, but sometimes depressing. but encouraging. it should come down. i grew up in the south in the
time of all of the problems we were having. we are having problems, but we can work it out. it is a sign of oppression. it is a sign of hatred. we can't go forward with that. as a race and as a country. so it should come down. greta wodele brawner: connie in illinois, and independent. we are getting your thoughts this morning on the debate over the confederate flag. what do you think? caller: i've got three comments. the war was not fought over slavery. that is a fact. the shooting in charleston was done by a nutcase that took a picture of him and the flag and this has been -- the flag has been used by racists for forever.
but if that kid is so racist against blacks, why was his best friend black? his very best friend was a black kid. he's been on tv many times talking about his friend the shooter. greta wodele brawner: ok. what do we know about dylann roof? you wrote about the information he got from the website of the council of conservative citizens. it has been called a white nationalist group. the headline in your piece is the white supremacist group that inspired a racist manifesto. david a. graham: sure. we know that dylann roof appears to have had friends who were black. we also know from talking to his friends that he seems to have adopted this racist ideology relatively recently. he says after the trayvon martin shooting. and the aftermath of that. i think we have to take him
somewhat at his word. we have pictures of him with nazi symbols, we have him saying he was inspired by what he thought was black on white crime. we have his quotes in the church as he was leaving. i think we just basically have to take -- there is no reason to believe that it was not inspired by race, despite the fact that he may have had black friends in the past. greta wodele brawner: joe, a republican. caller: hello. taking the flag down is not going to do anything. let's forget the whole story out there. republicans and people in the south should call the southern poverty law center and let's get justice for dennis blasi. a townhall meeting in missouri -- he was selling trinkets
because he had to pay some hospital bills. they singled him out during the health care debate. out from the tea party. these people called him the n-word and started beating him. the tea party stop them from killing him. the southern poverty law center, we called them 11 times. we call them try to get justice for this man. they are covering it up. they color churches and say if they speak against obama, they will burn the church is down. you think that's republicans? greta wodele brawner: all right. david, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. first, we have two member in america that he who lives in the past is doomed to repeat it. so, i am a vietnam that,vet, and i don't look at army movies. i find them depressing. let's look at the first
amendment. the first amendment says freedom of speech. we have to remember that if you yell fire inside of a theater, you are breaking the law. all of these symbolisms we have out here that go back to the civil war that go back to slavery, we need to get rid of all of that. i understand that everybody has an opinion about everything because we know what opinions are, they're the same as assumptions. but i think if mr. graham would write an article telling people let's start celebrating the living and where we want to go in the united states and let's put the past in museums. that's why we developed museums. so thanks for taking my call. you guys are fantastic. sometimes you do hear callers that make a lot of sense. let's go forward, not backward. greta wodele brawner: all right david. let's talk about when debate that has come out of this as well, not just over the flag but gun control as well.
this is something the president talked about immediately after this tragedy last week. it is something now that a former west virginia governor, senator joe manchin they are saying let's revisit background check legislation. maybe we can try again. it failed on the senate floor in 2013. david a. graham: that's right. it is marked will how slowly gun control has come up. obama went straight to gun control in his comments, which is unusually fast for him. he has tended to take it well to bring it up. even in the course of speeches after major shootings. he went right to it and he also seemed fairly resigned to the idea that it would not happen. the fact that we have joe manchin speaking about it now, it is interesting. what we saw last time they brought this up was the political prospects are very difficult. there is a lot of opposition. in congress. generally the american people
seem to support background checks in polling. we will see if it gets any further now than it did in past efforts. greta wodele brawner: a couple of reactions on twitter. jay is saying that there is probably change like you are talking about because of greater awareness of hate due to greater mass media. and then rick on twitter says the kansas caller says it is a simple and he is correct. it is a symbol of hate, full stop. tampa florida. kenneth, independent. good morning. caller: good morning greta. greta wodele brawner: what's your question? caller: i am a retired veteran. what i look at when it comes to the rebel flag because i originally and from south carolina -- it don't bother me to see the flag because once i see the flag i know what that person stands when it comes to me or anything. but at the end of the day, what is the difference between a rebel flag now and the isis flag
that we are so upset about taking over the middle east? what would be the difference as far as how people express -- and now in 2013 with the isis flag? greta wodele brawner: someone on twitter says the rebel flag should be treated with respect it should be folded and put to rest. today it is not a sign of glory but hate. that is the reaction on twitter. bill in texas, a republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment. i believe that they should take the flag down for the immediate ceremonies. and put it back up. the flag represents an ideology. i am proud to be from the south. i didn't fight the civil war but i am proud my ancestors that did. it stood for bravery courage
to make a stance against the federal government. i fly a flag, not at my home, because i am obviously afraid of repercussions from that, but i go up to oklahoma. on my property. and i proudly fly the flag. greta wodele brawner: we are going to leave it there because the house is about to come in. we want david graham to give us the timeline for the debate in south carolina. when might they take a vote on whether or not the flag comes down there? david a. graham: it will be sometime in july. greta wodele brawner: other states are looking at taking down this emblem as well. david a. graham: we saw the governor of virginia ordered that a confederate flag license plate be withdrawn.
the governor of tennessee made a similar request. greta wodele brawner: you can continue to follow this debate by going to the atlantic's website. on twitter as well @theatlantic. david graham, thank you for your time. that doesn't for today's washington journal. the house is about to gavel in for their legislative session. iq for watching will be back here tomorrow morning. the speaker pro tempore: the hoist will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: speaker's rooms washington, d.c. june 24, 2015.